Agility.js – My second look.
185 views
Skip to first unread message
gsb
Apr 30, 2012, 5:42:12 PM4/30/12
to Agility.js
Agility.js – My second look. I have refactored a couple of old
examples to better fit agility's design perspective. It does take a
little getting used to, but the results are quite intuitive in
review. It is just the break from traditional MVC/templating that I
was missing, or so I think just now. I am sticking to jQuery at the
moment, but I still think that a version compatible with Zepto or
better yet, XUI would better suit the mobile webapp and hybrid app
developers. Greg.
examples to better fit agility's design perspective. It does take a
little getting used to, but the results are quite intuitive in
review. It is just the break from traditional MVC/templating that I
was missing, or so I think just now. I am sticking to jQuery at the
moment, but I still think that a version compatible with Zepto or
better yet, XUI would better suit the mobile webapp and hybrid app
developers. Greg.
Tom Lackner
Apr 30, 2012, 6:21:12 PM4/30/12
to agil...@googlegroups.com
Just curious: other than jQuery's size, what about it makes it an unattractive fit for Agility.js development in the mobile context? Seems to work OK on phones over here (though our web apps are not mobile-focused for the most part).--
Thomas Lackner * 305-978-8525
Thomas Lackner * 305-978-8525
gsb
Apr 30, 2012, 8:01:20 PM4/30/12
to Agility.js
@Tom Lackner
Yes. Just size; excess baggage for older browser compatibility. But
your inference is correct; the size issue compared to a more focused
smaller mobile-only framework, is becoming less of an issue as the
network transfer speeds increase. That and local storage caching of
resources go a long way towards mitigating the size difference which
is only some 50-60K at most - the size of one medium image or so.
And "...unattractive fit..." No. Not at all. I believe that
Agility.js is rather well suited for mobile web applications. I
intend to expand my experience with it on my next applicable project.
Meanwhile, some more retro-fitting and testing. Thanks for your
comments. Greg
On Apr 30, 6:21 pm, Tom Lackner <lack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just curious: other than jQuery's size, what about it makes it an
> unattractive fit for Agility.js development in the mobile context? Seems to
> work OK on phones over here (though our web apps are not mobile-focused for
> the most part).
>
Yes. Just size; excess baggage for older browser compatibility. But
your inference is correct; the size issue compared to a more focused
smaller mobile-only framework, is becoming less of an issue as the
network transfer speeds increase. That and local storage caching of
resources go a long way towards mitigating the size difference which
is only some 50-60K at most - the size of one medium image or so.
And "...unattractive fit..." No. Not at all. I believe that
Agility.js is rather well suited for mobile web applications. I
intend to expand my experience with it on my next applicable project.
Meanwhile, some more retro-fitting and testing. Thanks for your
comments. Greg
On Apr 30, 6:21 pm, Tom Lackner <lack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just curious: other than jQuery's size, what about it makes it an
> unattractive fit for Agility.js development in the mobile context? Seems to
> work OK on phones over here (though our web apps are not mobile-focused for
> the most part).
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages